What We Really Need: A Conversation with Lab Operators

Author: Pasqualino Pannone, Project Manager, Flad Architects

I recently had the privilege of leading an industry focus group at the LabOps Unite Leadership Conference in Cambridge, MA. The LabOps community is a global network of lab operators and professionals sharing their knowledge and experience with their colleagues. The group is a resource for everything from recommendations on donating surplus supplies and equipment to navigating a city’s biotech checklist for an inspection.

These are the people who keep the labs running behind the scenes (with responsibilities like responding to alarms in the middle of the night) so that the scientists can focus on their mission-critical work. With that in mind, this was the perfect group to ask a few questions about what works and doesn’t work in a lab, what users are requesting, and what insights they have about future lab trends.  

Credit: Mark Herboth

“Form needs to follow function.”   

Not surprisingly, the lessons learned from new lab designs and renovations were a hot topic. Even when I asked them to gaze into their crystal ball and predict future lab trends, the conversation would inevitably circle back to the here and now. I anticipated requests for more data ports at the benches to support an increase in automation or AI applications, but those suggestions were quickly brushed aside with a quick hand wave and an assurance that they would be fine as long as they had enough plugs.

The consensus was that lab design strategies such as laying out spaces with a modular approach and utilizing overhead service panels for quick connections to mobile benches provide the flexibility to meet their general needs. Operators applauded any attempt to limit the downtime required to swap out a piece of equipment or transform a space for a new use.

More than one person referenced an experience when a new – and very expensive – piece of equipment sat idle for months while a lab conversion took place. That unused equipment, sitting in a box, represented lost time and revenue and a significant source of frustration. Some participants requested better distribution of equipment zones throughout the lab, a conversation which quickly escalated into a passionate discussion on glass walls. 

 
“I need storage, storage, and more storage.”

Nearly every operator mentioned the need for more storage. This isn’t surprising, but how it related to glass within the labs, which some dubbed the “fishbowl effect,” did give me pause. Creating cultural and physical transparency by removing the visual barrier separating the office and the lab has been an important feature of the modern-day lab. Glass panels allow users to maintain a connection between their office space and their lab work without having to exit one space or the other.  

Visitors – think potential investors or partners - can experience the buzz of the lab without gowning up or disrupting the scientists as they go about their business. Glass panels also allow natural light to penetrate deeper into the building and offer users coveted views of the outside, which is known to promote a healthier work experience. Think about how depressing closed-off cellar spaces with no access to daylight can be to work in.

The unanticipated consequence of more glass walls in the lab is the impact on storage capacity. The more glass there is the less wall space for equipment and supplies. What would be the point of a glass wall if it were blocked by metro racks full of boxes? Yes, labs should be exciting and vibrant so long as they’re also efficient and productive. Point taken.  

There were some detractors of the open lab concept. Lab operators feel that the openness makes them vulnerable to distractions from conversations or other activities, which makes it harder for technicians to concentrate on specific tasks. They prefer more dedicated labs over the free flow of an open lab but still voiced the importance of views to the outside. 

“Benches don’t move, people do.”

How they defined flexibility extended beyond the physical lab itself. Operators wanted the ability to quickly visualize and test fit the relocation or insertion of people and equipment before actually moving them around by trial and error. This also tied into their notions of what it meant for a lab’s ability to expand if necessary. Suggestions included digital tools that allow them to map out their workflow and instrument layout. The request seemed logical, given how quickly labs can turn over or pivot, even during the design and construction phases. As the participants were fond of saying, “benches don’t move, people do,” and people need to react quickly.

Regarding office spaces, operators felt that there often aren’t enough collaboration spaces within the lab or enough touch-down spaces on the office side. Offices, conference rooms, and touch-down spaces have migrated out of the lab to reduce the mechanical load on spaces that don’t require 100% fresh air and to reduce the air change rates for non-lab spaces. The result is savings on operational costs for spaces that do not require expensive lab mechanical systems. It also reduces the cross-contamination concerns of having food and drinks pass through a lab. Keep the coffee at your office desk, please. 

That said, creating collaboration spaces, including a location for a digital interface, can easily be accommodated within the lab. Scientists should not have to leave the lab or schedule a conference room just for a quick huddle or team meeting.  

Credit: Mark Herboth

“Innovation is what happens at the bench by the scientist, not the lab itself.”
On the topic of future trends, operators reiterated that an innovative lab is a flexible lab. Spaces need to adapt to innovation at the science level and the creative work happening at the bench, not the other way around. 

More often than not, the source of frustration came down to a lack of communication. Many of these operators either inherited a lab, usually a lab not initially intended for its current use, or they were not included during the programming and space planning phases of the project. All too often, they were forced to adapt and improvise. They requested defined SOPs (standard operating procedures), clarity on best industry practices, and training to foster a safe and efficient environment.  

I appreciate these honest discussions of how day-to-day life in the lab is impacted by design. These conversations between lab operators and lab designers provide insights that are invaluable regarding the design of efficient, next-generation labs.